[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, how about you do more than the same song and dance routine where every atheist here gets to show us how “smart” they are by degrading beliefs held by people…some of whom are smarter than they are.
It’s fucking tired, dude. None of you are shining that huge intellect at us when you do this.[/quote]
As I wrote, I’ve already been down that road.
Not sure how smart one has to feel they are to be dismissive of evidence pasted from places that state outright that no evidence is valid unless it fits in with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
If you want to discuss it, start a CvE thread.
[quote]anatonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, how about you do more than the same song and dance routine where every atheist here gets to show us how “smart” they are by degrading beliefs held by people…some of whom are smarter than they are.
It’s fucking tired, dude. None of you are shining that huge intellect at us when you do this.[/quote]
As I wrote, I’ve already been down that road.
Not sure how smart one has to feel they are to be dismissive of evidence pasted from places that state outright that no evidence is valid unless it fits in with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
If you want to discuss it, start a CvE thread.[/quote]
Been there and done that…and it was still a better discussion than most of the pure shit leaking from asses on this forum lately.
Wait…CAT PIC!!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cite references.[/quote]
Dude, it’s one of the web sites you snatched pages and pages of text from to spam pookie out of the debate.
It’s the AiG [Answers in Genesis] Statement of Faith.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, this has nothing to do with religious texts, we’re talking dating methods.[/quote]
So, wait, you want us to back up the majority of scientific bodies who feel that dating methods ARE reliable enough to effectively discern between 200 million and 10,000 years… because your web site that states no evidence that doesn’t support a literal account of Genesis is acceptable says otherwise?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s what I thought. Just another internet pussy who can’t back up his firm beliefs. You’re a dime a dozen, champ.
BTW, this has nothing to do with religious texts, we’re talking dating methods.[/quote]
Ask yourself this: Has the world changed so much in the 2,000 years since the death of Jesus? But yet you feel that only 4,000 additional years were required for the remainder of history to occur? It’s not up to me to disprove dating methods “champ”. The burden of proof lies on the accuser.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, cite references FOR YOUR CLAIM:[/quote]
Wikipedia that shit, brah. I’ll get you started:
[i]"One 1987 estimate found that “700 scientists … (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) … give credence to creation-science”.
"A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that “Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time â?? 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection.”
"In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying “intelligent design is not science” and calling on “all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory”.[/i]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, the world is full of scoffers who don’t mind banging on the tambourine but they have no idea whatsoever what the lyrics of the song are.[/quote]
Anyone who reads the CvE threads you have “participated” will be able to cut the irony with a knife.
It’s 2:36am over here. See you later.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
An estimate and a poll, huh?
And a “coalition” who had a preconceived idea?
Really?
Where are the links, BTW?[/quote]
If you are TRULY curious, you can go to Wikipedia (where I said it was from), scroll down to the section labeled “Scientific Support” and check out the cited references yourself.
Or you can wait until tomorrow evening.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]anatonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]anatonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
LOL are you kidding me, pushharder is a creationist?
[/quote]
What does that word mean to you exactly?
Further…why would any of you believe that everyone who believes in a higher power also believes the world is only 6,000 years old?[/quote]
Who said that was the case?
Creationism – ie, the “scientific theory” we are referring to – typically involves the belief that the planet is only 6 - 10k years old.[/quote]
This isn’t even true. Creationism doesn’t have anything specifically to do with a young world theory.[/quote]
Well, then the “creationists” we are referring to believe in the Young Earth Theory.[/quote]
Well, how about you do more than the same song and dance routine where every atheist here gets to show us how “smart” they are by degrading beliefs held by people…some of whom are smarter than they are.
It’s fucking tired, dude. None of you are shining that huge intellect at us when you do this.[/quote]
lol way to drag on a useless conversation over semantics. This thread was funny until you and pushharder decided to get all defensive. Honestly, I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue. Noone is bashing you or your beliefs (even more so because you actually don’t seem to agree with young-world theory).
While I’m digging up those links for you, can you do me a favor and scrounge up a few pro-YEC articles published in reputable scientific journals?
Thanks.